Following Nechama’s recommendation at the beginning of the Alon HaDeracha, second paragraph, that when comparing variant texts that repeat a particular incident or conversation, that it is best to make a chart, here is one covering section Alef:
ברא' מו:לא-לב
| In the presentation to Pharoah, the father is both directly mentioned and prior to mentioning the brothers. Gaining sympathy, deemphasizing threat suggested by the presence of the brothers. | אבי ואחי | אחי ובית אבי |
| In the presentation to Pharoah, the family is described as coming with all of its belongings | וצאנם ובקרם וכל אשר להם | אשר בארץ כנען |
| from the land of Canaan. Gives the impression that they are nomads whose most recent stay was in Canaan, but who now are prepared to immigrate to Egypt, without any intent to return to Canaan. This is in contrast to the original discussion with the brothers where the herds are used as a modifier of the family’s profession, i.e., herders. Furthermore, in the first statement, the terminology “that are in the land of Canaan” suggests that they are only temporarily interested in staying in Egypt, perhaps only as long as the famine lasts. Would Pharoah necessarily be prepared to make the same substantive and long-term commitment to them if that were the case? Another significant change is from Yosef’s stating that the family had come to him, in effect diminishing the importance of Pharoah and Egypt. Consequently upon speaking with Pharoah, Yosef modified this fact. | באו מארץ כנען | באו אלי |
| The mention of the family already having taken up residence in Goshen serves to make Pharoah’s acquiescence to this arrangement intended to limit assimilation, easier to obtain. The idea that the Jews should be off on their own is reinforced by depicting Yosef’s family as herdsmen; however, when speaking to Pharoah, Yosef appears to wish to make the impression of how distinguished members of his family are, and consequently, he deemphasizes their profession. | והנם בארץ גשן | והאנשים רעי צאן כי אנשי מקנה היו |
| וצאנם ובקרם וכל אשר להם הביאו |
Beit:
ברא' מו:לג-ד
| Who will initiate the meeting—Pharoah or Yosef? Or will it seem as though Pharoah is calling them, but in fact it is Yosef who is making all of the arrangements and suggested to Pharoah that he meet his brothers? | ומקצה אחיו לקח חמשה אנשים ויצום לפני פרעה | והי' כי יקרא לכם פרעה |
| It is likely that in light of Yosef’s immense success in managing the country’s affairs, Pharoah would like to make civil servants of the entire family. | ויאמר פרעה אל אחיו מה מעשיכם? | ואמר מה מעשיכם? |
| Although at the time of the meeting it appears as though the brothers are spontaneously responding to Pharoah’s questions, in fact everything has been anticipated and scripted. | ויאמרו אל פרעה | ואמרתם |
| Are the brothers cattle owners thus employing others to shepherd the herds, or are they themselves the individuals who are in direct contact with the animals? The former sounds more distinguished when compared to the latter. | רעה צאן עבדיך | אנשי מקנה היו עבדיך |
| Is this a profession that has been followed by only this generation, or is this a tradition that has been in the family for many, many generations? It is more difficult to get someone to change when in addition to his own initiative, he is carrying out family traditions. | גם אנחנו גם אבותינו | מנעורינו עד עתה |
| In what they say to Pharoah, they give the impression that the only reason that they came to Egypt was to find pasture land for their animals. Goshen then becomes a possibility since apparently it possesses the requisite pastures. However, in the original discussion, it appears that the intention was to dwell in Goshen, independent of the needs of the animals. | ויאמרו אל פרעה לגור בארץ באנו כי אין מרעה לצאן אשר לעבדיך כי כבד הרעב בארץ כנען ועתה ישבו נא עבדיך בארץ גושן. | |
| בעבור תשבו בארץ גושן כי תועבת מצרים כל רועה צאן. | Although Yosef was thinking that depicting his brothers as herdsmen would cause the Egyptians, led by Pharoah, to wish to distance themselves as much as possible from them, this was never articulated to Pharoah in order that he not think that he was being manipulated. |
1. Here are the verses that according to Benno Jacob, contain parallel questions to that which Pharoah poses to Yosef’s brothers in 47:3.
בראשית פרק ג
](ג) ומפרי העץ אשר בתוך הגן אמר אלקים לא תאכלו ממנו ולא תגעו בו פן תמתון:
- This first reference does not contain a question, leading me to conclude that there is a misprint in the Gilayon.]
(ט) ויקרא יקוק אלקים אל האדם ויאמר לו איכה:
(יג) ויאמר יקוק אלקים לאשה מה זאת עשית ותאמר האשה הנחש השיאני ואכל:
בראשית פרק ד
(ט) ויאמר יקוק אל קין אי הבל אחיך ויאמר לא ידעתי השמר אחי אנכי:
בראשית פרק לג
(ה) וישא את עיניו וירא את הנשים ואת הילדים ויאמר מי אלה לך ויאמר הילדים אשר חנן אלקים את עבדך:
בראשית פרק לג
(ח) ויאמר מי לך כל המחנה הזה אשר פגשתי ויאמר למצא חן בעיני אדני:
These questions can be understood to be not just informational queries but rather pertaining to the existential nature of those being questioned. Consequently they are all double entendres in the sense that on one level they could be answered simply, but the questioner appears to be probing not only for what is taking place externally, but also internally with regard to the ones being questioned: - What is it that you, the brothers of Yosef do, so that we can determine how you might best fit into Egyptian society?
- The fact that you are hiding from Me in the Garden of Eden is a red flag that something terrible has happened that endangers the relationship between God and man. Where are you “at”?
- What have you done in the sense that you have broken the trust and understanding between God and man?
- How could you have taken the life of your brother Hevel in that he can no longer be found, i.e., no longer exists?
- What does having a family mean to you Yaakov, and how do they relate to the tradition that is being passed down from our parents’ generation to us?
- What is implied by your attempting to incur favor with me by sending such a great gift?
3. It would appear that the actual answers given to Pharoah are intended to allay any fears that he might have that the brothers have designs to play a major role in Egypt due to their prowess and skills. Efforts are made to make them appear inconsequential and unambitious. If in the end Pharoah becomes uninterested in them, he will more readily agree that they should live in Goshen, which is much removed from Egypt’s urban center.
However, in the Alon HaDeracha, Nechama attributes the difference between the brothers’ actual comments to Pharoah and those proposed by Yosef to a lack of self-confidence on their parts, in contrast to their father Yaakov, who when he meets Pharoah bows neither when he first enters or when he departs (47:7-10). Yosef’s brothers bow down repeatedly when they are first brought into only Pharoah’s second-in-command, unbeknownst to them as Yosef (42:6). If this is how they conducted themselves in this official’s presence, they would understandably be that much more deferential in the presence of Pharoah himself.
Gimel
1. The term בעבור suggests that the entire audience with Pharoah is geared to accomplish the end of living in Goshen. Although Goshen also serves the ostensible purpose of offering grazing land for their animals, RaShI explains that when the brothers explain that they have no other skills than being herdsmen, the Egyptians will be more than happy to settle them in the distant part of Egypt which is the entire goal.
2. At first Akeidat Yitzchak emphasizes how by avoiding becoming involved in administrating Egypt, the Jews will have weaker ties to the land. Goshen was only one possibility whereby the Jews would be removed from the general Egyptian society. This end could have been accomplished by living in other parts of the country as well.
In the second interpretation, Goshen is considered a very desirable area in Egypt, and by identifying themselves as caretakers of animals that the Egyptians deem as holy, it will be easier for them to justify allowing the Jews to inhabit such prime real estate.
- 3. a) The first underlined phrase emphasizes that the land of Goshen was secondary to the goal of being far away from the Egyptian center and its culture and idolatry.
- b) The second underlined phrase emphasizes how it is better to lead a powerful individual into thinking that he has made a decision, rather than attempting to make an executive decision on his own, or to ask on his family’s behalf something that Yosef rather than Pharoah thought to do. (While the text implies that Yosef’s administrative moves regarding guiding Egypt through the famine years were carried out without consultations with Pharoah, one can perhaps extrapolate from how Yosef handled the Goshen issue to everything else that he did and conclude that he was always careful to include Pharoah before enacting policy decisions.) Akeidat Yitzchak then says that if Yosef followed such a strategy in the relatively insignificant matter of exactly where his family would reside, it is so much more important to do the same when much greater matters may be at stake.
- 4. Although Yosef recognized that he was quite capable of running the country himself, he was careful not to offend Pharoah by leaving him out of the decision-making process. How we act around individuals who at least have the self-perception that they ought to be in charge, goes far in determining whether these individuals will be threatened by those below them or will feel good about taking credit for the achievements of those who serve beneath them.
- Another instance of Yosef allowing Pharoah to take the lead in decision-making is in 45:16-20, where the latter instructs Yosef how his family should come to take up residence in Egypt. His bringing Yaakov to Pharoah so that he could bless the monarch (47:7-10) was another sensitive move on Yosef’s part intended to win sympathy from his master. Furthermore, rather than keeping control of the funds that he collected in exchange for food, all monies were brought to Pharoah’s palace (47:14) symbolizing who truly was in control of what was occurring. Then Yosef oversaw the sale of all Egyptian land as well as the Egyptians themselves (with the exception of the priestly class) to Pharoah in exchange for food (47:18-26).
- 5. Here is the reference that Nechama alludes to in the commentary of Emek Davar on the Gilayon for VeZot HaBeracha 5711, question 3:
העמק דבר, (ר' נפתלי צבי יהודה ברלין, ראש ישיבת וולוזין, נפטר תרנ"ג 1892 ):
ופירוש "בטח" ופירוש "בטח" הוא במנוחת הנפש בהאהב בין אדם לחברו ובלי התחרות עם שאר אומות העולם. ו"בדד" הוא בל ובלי התערבות יתירה עם אומות העולם ברעות והתחתנות, אלא בדד, מובדלים ומצוינים בפני עצמם. ושתי מי עצמם. ושתי מידות הללו הם "עין יעקב" – מידתו ומבוקשו של יעקב שיהיו בניו כן.
- Due to the NeTzI”V’s struggles with the Reform movement and the Enlightenment, he would understandably be hypersensitive to the possibility of Jewish assimilation into the greater society, and probably wished for his own “Goshen” that would serve to preserve Jewish identity and tradition. See the Alon HaDeracha for additional background information about NeTzI”V. Nechama in her comments associates his approach not so much as a reaction to Reform, but rather as an advocacy of Zionism. The position of religious Zionists when the movement was first formed not only constituted a response to anti-Semitism which appeared to have primarily spurred on secularists like Herzl, but also an opportunity to unify the Jewish people in one place under one authority.
The Haftora for Parashat VaYigash is taken from Yechezkel 37:16-28.
What struck me strange about the first half of the Haftora is the insistence upon unification of the people once they are restored to the land of Israel from their lengthy Exile. While the competition between Yosef and Yehuda was apparent during the early Biblical period with respect to the children of Yaakov and the tribes that they each formed, did this ill-feeling carry forward to the point where the prophet must engage in a symbolic act to emphasize how the kingship must be unified under a descendent of David? When the Jews were carried off to Exile, the kingdoms of Yehuda and Yisrael effectively ceased to function. Consequently, why is it necessary to continue to emphasize how the schism must be ended?
Heh.
The reason why Targum Yonatan changes the interpretation of עץ is the result of the text’s context. In v. 16-17, the original prophetic image that the prophet was shown was described. However, already in v. 19, alongside the reference to the wood of Yosef, there is mention of שבטי ישראל. Since actual wood cannot be the companions חבריו of tribes, therefore the Targum felt it necessary to redefine the “wood” as also referring to one of the tribes in particular stemming from Yosef, i.e., Ephraim.
Vav.
1. In each of these instances, the prophet publicly does something that is abnormal or at least atypical, eliciting from the onlookers inquiries as to the symbolic significance of his actions.
2. Rather than simply attributing to the prophet a propensity for idiosyncratic behavior, the onlookers realize that what he is doing has significance for the immanent fate of the Jewish people. Consequently they ask him to explain the meaning of his actions.
3. Perhaps when contrasting the second case (24:19) with the first and the third (37:18 and 21:12), the situation where despite suffering such a terrible loss as the death of his wife, he refused to mourn, was perceived as so much more abnormal and counterintuitive than putting pieces of wood together or deeply sighing, that the people realized that something portentous regarding the collective fate of everyone was being communicated via this demonstration.
4. Devarim 29:23, despite on one level paralleling the three verses in Yechezkel in the sense that something that takes place precipitates curiosity and questioning, is nevertheless significantly different in the sense that the overall meaning of the cause-and-effect phenomenon is clear, i.e., God is Displeased with the Jewish people and outsiders wish to know what brought on the punishments that were clearly being brought to bear. The three instances in Yechezkel describe strange behavior on the part of the prophet whose overall meaning is unclear—there is no punishment theme readily apparent when the prophet puts two pieces of wood together, refuses to allow himself to mourn for the passing of his wife or sighs deeply and dramatically—and therefore the people become eager to hear why the prophet is doing these things. Furthermore, the putting the wood together ends up representing the future unity of the kingship and is not associated with anything negative at all, in contrast to the lack of mourning which represents how the Jewish people will act when they suffer terrible losses due to their sinfulness, and the sighing associated with the terrors that God Intends to bring upon the nation due to their sinfulness.
5. The two verses in Shemot which are associated with two of the four sons discussed in the Haggada (12:26—the Rasha; 13:14—the Tam), describe questions that onlookers direct at someone engaged in activities that are seen to be abnormal, i.e., the rituals practiced at the Seder, some of which are deliberately designed to elicit wonder on the part of younger participants, e.g., taking the Seder plate away before the meal, eating Maror, exclusively eating Matza, insisting that attendees recline when eating and drinking, eating the Pascal sacrifice in one’s home as opposed to within the Temple precincts as was done with all other sacrifices, etc. Nevertheless the assumption that these actions represent what God is about to do to the Jewish people if they do not repent and fulfill His Commandments is absent. The questions rather appear to assume that it is unimportant or even needless to engage in these rituals. Furthermore, one person does not engage in the actions, but rather everyone who has assembled. Finally, the answers demonstrate that the actions are responses to things that have taken place in the past, e.g., Maror for the bitterness experienced by the Jews at the hands of the Egyptians, the Matza due to there not being sufficient time to allow bread to rise as the Jews hurriedly made their way out of Egypt, the reclining as representing the freedom from servitude achieved by the Jews, etc., as opposed to indicating what might or definitely will take place in the future.
Zayin.
Re Yechezkel 37:27
1. The problem for both of the commentators is the usage of the preposition עליהם in conjunction with משכני. As is obvious from the very next verse, the more typical preposition that would relate to God’s Dwelling amongst the people is בתוכם, as in Shemot 25:8; 29:45.
RaDaK might take his cue from e.g., Shemot 20:16, where the Fear of God is על your faces.
R. Eliezer MiBalganzi on the other hand might be inspired by the phrase in the Friday evening liturgy, “And Spread עלינו Your Canopy of Peace."
2. The two verses, Yeshayahu 2:3 (there is a misprint on the Gilayon) and Yechezkel 40:2, suggested as sources for the assumption that Yechezkel 37:27 is to be understood as stating that the future Temple will be built upon a mountain, are unconvincing. Mt. Moriah upon which the two Jerusalem Temples was situated is at a relatively higher elevation than the surrounding land. However, with respect to the usage of the term ליהםע, short of invoking the image of כפה עליהם ההר כגיגית, the idea that the preposition עליהם suggests that the Temple will be on a mountain is difficult to assert.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment